Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.

Posted byu/s_dalbiac
5 months ago
Curling newbie here...a question!
Have been getting into curling during the Olympics, just had a question regarding tactics.

Is there anything to stop you, if you have the hammer in the first end, purposely blanking the first nine ends and then scoring in end 10? If you can, is this a tactic that's ever used? It seems to me that, given how difficult it is to steal, it would be worth trying.

So yes, that is a tactic you can try. And in fact, up through the early '90's, it was pretty much the primary tactic used.

This made for exceptionally dull games, where instead of hoping for excellent shots, you were hoping for a miss on Yet Another Peel.

In the 90's, Curling implemented a thing called the "Free Guard Zone", more or less specifically to combat this problem. It makes it so that the first 5 (it started out as 3, then was changed to 4, 5 is the number at the beginning of this season) stones of an end cannot be removed from play by the other team if they are Guards (stones placed outside of the scoring house, to "guard" areas of the house).

The existence of these stones makes it possible for both teams to try and set up tactical situations in their favor, and it has all but eliminated the 1-0 games.

But, if the situation allows, it is perfectly legitimate as a strategy for the hammer team to attempt to blank the first 9 ends and win in the 10th. It's very unlikely today, but teams can try.

yes, that is a strategy one could use. as said above the 4 rock rule was put into effect to counter that and encourage rocks to be put into play. with how good teams have become at peals and tick shots it's become easier to blank and try and run the ends out. i've seen games even with that rule implemented where half the ends or over half the ends were blanked away.

the 5 rock rule was then introduced to , again try to keep rocks in play and encourage aggressive play.

the problem here though is that even with the 5 rock rule teams are still so good at the tick shot these days that if a team doesn't want rocks in play to to play with guards right from the start then the tick shot allows the rocks to be moved without removal and can take away guards. also the rocks these days are so lively and teams are so good at hitting and runbacks that even early end aggressive set up with rocks in play can be undone in 1 or 2 shots.

in short there's nothing wrong with trying to run ends out but it would make for a pretty boring game

Yeah, tick shots have become a thing, however, they are not the paper to the FGZ rule's Rock.

Tick shots have a much, much smaller range of success, the weight has to be perfect, as does the line. As opposed to a peel which, frankly, just about anyone who can hit 1/4 of a stone can execute.

Plus, the result of a missed tick is much more interesting than a missed peel. If a peel is missed, either the new stone just replaces the old as a guard, or the delivered stone misses everything and goes out of play. A tick, because of the lighter weight, has a chance to end up leaving the shooting stone in play, and frequently in the house, which changes things up dramatically.

quote:Originally posted by AlanMacNeill Yeah, tick shots have become a thing, however, they are not the paper to the FGZ rule's Rock.

Tick shots have a much, much smaller range of success, the weight has to be perfect, as does the line. As opposed to a peel which, frankly, just about anyone who can hit 1/4 of a stone can execute.

Plus, the result of a missed tick is much more interesting than a missed peel. If a peel is missed, either the new stone just replaces the old as a guard, or the delivered stone misses everything and goes out of play. A tick, because of the lighter weight, has a chance to end up leaving the shooting stone in play, and frequently in the house, which changes things up dramatically.

I don't mind tick attempts. I *hated* the peel game as a spectator

this is very true. the tick is a problem but might not be as much of one with the 5 rock rule.

the real problem, again is how good teams have got at hitting. even with the 5 rock rule it'd only take a couple good hits, doubles or a run back to take the end away. the rocks are more lively and reactive than ever which isn't really a good thing. it means they are easier to clear out by the big weight shots.

teams like jacobs, mcewen and edin who are fantastic hitters are still going to be able to hit their way out of trouble and blank away ends if they want. this 5 rock rule won't hinder that

Ehh, I find it hard to feel bad about a team excelling because it can use raises and doubles to change the complexion of an end.

The random internet fan doesn't really care that the result of that quadruple raise takeout was just a blank end...they saw five stones moving around at "how in the hell did they do that??" angles. Never mind that it was really a simple shot (for those players), it looks exciting and error prone.

Even the "bad games" are more interesting and exciting because the perceived level of difficulty is higher and the perceived risk in case of error is higher. And that's really all a sport can accomplish.

Yes, an end like that which concludes in a blank is still entertaining to watch. Like watching a baseball team methodically work to manufacture a run with stolen bases or sacrifice bunts only to have the defensive team somehow get out of the jam with no one scoring.

quote:Originally posted by AlanMacNeill Ehh, I find it hard to feel bad about a team excelling because it can use raises and doubles to change the complexion of an end.

The random internet fan doesn't really care that the result of that quadruple raise takeout was just a blank end...they saw five stones moving around at "how in the hell did they do that??" angles. Never mind that it was really a simple shot (for those players), it looks exciting and error prone.

Even the "bad games" are more interesting and exciting because the perceived level of difficulty is higher and the perceived risk in case of error is higher. And that's really all a sport can accomplish.

i don't know. i agree to a point. watching a team get out of trouble can be exciting but if it happens to many times in a game and let's say several ends in a row get blanked it can get tedious.

it is a good strategy to try and maintain hammer in even ends , i can't argue that however let's say some team blanks 1 but can't get anything going in the 2nd end so they blank again and then they blank in the 3rd because they want hammer in even ends. that kind of thing happens fairly frequently and i just don't like it

it's not the ability to play hard shots to get out of trouble i have a problem with . it's only when it starts resulting in several blanked ends consecutively

Site Menu:

Recent News

Today, the World Curling Tour announced the formation of WCT-Japan, a wholly owned subsidiary, which will operate in Japan, to build and grow competitive curling opportunities in this curling hungry country of 127 million people.